In another article, we looked at the decision of the Wisconsin state government to double the minimum liability insurance requirement. It had been $25,000 per individual injured and $50,000 for multiple claimants in a single traffic accident. This doubled to $50,000 and $100,000 respectively. There was a general feeling this would push an increasing number of the poor into driving without insurance. And, as was predicted at the time, one of the results of this change in the law has been an increase in the premiums. In some ZIP code areas, the rates have gone up by as much as 40%. This has put a lot more pressure on family budgets around the state.

At the same time this law was going through the state legislature, a second bill was produced which increases the pressure on law enforcement to check whether drivers are carrying valid insurance. This is a logical development. There is little point in making it mandatory to carry liability coverage if there is no effective enforcement. So, as from June 1st, all drivers in Wisconsin must carry proof of a valid insurance policy in their vehicles.

Writing this in May, the estimate is that about 14% of all drivers in Wisconsin fail to carry insurance. It is a depressing thought but, in national terms, this is quite a low percentage. Although most states have a mandatory insurance requirement, there is poor enforcement and whether through real poverty or a stubborn refusal to comply, some states have relatively high numbers of uninsured drivers on the road. So will this change in the law produce a flood of people suddenly insuring their vehicles? Probably not in the short term! No matter what the law says, people with a choice between eating and insuring their vehicles will almost always choose to eat.

When interviewed on their proposed approach to the new law, local police authorities have said they will start out with education in mind. On all routine stops, drivers will be asked for proof of insurance. If none is forthcoming, they will be told of the law and advised they cannot legally drive away. But the police will not call for the tow truck during the first weeks of June. Think of it as warnings rather than citations. With the coming of summer, the policy will change and citations will be issued for failure to carry. In all traffic accidents, all the drivers involved will be asked for proof of insurance. Read the rest of this entry

First, what is the problem with the range of insurance policies on offer from the insurance industry? Why is it necessary for the Department of Insurance to intervene in the market? The answer is simple. California has been hit hard by the recession. Gone are the days when people were proud to live in the “Golden State”. The problem is seen most obviously in the repeated failures of the state to deal with its massive deficit. Now translate this into the millions of people living in the state who cannot find work paying enough money to live on. Their poverty means it is impossible to pay for insurance and eat. Not surprisingly, millions of drivers are on the roads without insurance. In 2008, the Department of Insurance estimated about 18% of Californian drivers were uninsured. Since then, the unemployment rate has doubled.

Why is this a problem? Well, although many drivers buy uninsured or underinsured cover, you have to be able to identify the other driver in the accident. If you cannot, say because it’s a hit-and-run, you cannot show the other driver was uninsured and so cannot claim on the policy. Since most uninsured drivers prefer not to wait around to admit their criminal offense (that costs them a fine and may result in their vehicle being impounded), all that can, drive away from the scene of the accident as quickly as possible. That is bad luck for you and great news for the insurers who take your premium and rarely have to pay out. Read the rest of this entry

The world is often a confusing place and nowhere is the confusion likely to be so complete as in the tax system. Here we have the best brains in the Government taking on the best brains in the private sector. The Government wants the maximum tax take. The private sector wants to arrange things so that no one with money ever has to pay any tax. Somewhere in the middle the two world-views collide and, usually, some tax is paid. Anyway, when President Obama signed the healthcare reform bill into law, some of the largest employers in the US let out a collective sigh of pain. As an example, Caterpillar is the world’s largest manufacturer of excavators and bulldozers. The day after the President’s signature, Caterpillar announced it was taking a charge of $100 million to earnings over an expected loss of tax benefits. A number of other influential corporations have also made allowances in their accounts. The reason is that the healthcare reform ended a tax break given to cover the cost of supplying drugs to early retirees. Read the rest of this entry

There are times when you get an overview and then it hits you, “Somethings just don’t add up.” Well, you remember Wellpoint, don’t you? This is the friendly company that, around January or February, announced it was going to increase premium rates by up to 39% in a number of states around the Union. President Obama got himself all worked up, citing them as the real reason why all the Democrats in Washington should band together and take a stand against the insurance industry. Then, sure as eggs is eggs, there was a stampede to get the healthcare reform bill to the President for him to sign it into law. Those Democrats sure did have fun beating on Wellpoint. So the big question is what happened next? Here’s one of the largest corporations in the insurance market demanding premium increases. Did it get its way?

The answer starts off in California where the maximum rate of 39% was due to take effect. The state referred the proposed increase to independent auditors for an opinion. The answer came back negative. It seemed Wellpoint couldn’t add up. Well, that’s oversimplifying things a little. But the reality is that the numbers Wellpoint offered to support their premium increases were based on some very shaky mathematical assumptions. When news of the report became public, Wellpoint withdrew the proposed increase. Acting on this, Kathleen Sebelius who is Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services sent out a letter to all state insurance commissioners encouraging them to review every proposed premium increase. This is the first sign that the balance of power is shifting against the insurance industry and in favor of the consumer. For too long, insurance companies have hidden behind complicated mathematical explanations and gamed the system. With the Affordable Care Act now law, Sebelius is encouraging every state to give itself the power to approve rate increases. The first sign of continuing good news for consumers comes out of Connecticut where Attorney General Blumental forced an audit of Blue Shield and Anthem Blue Cross, both Wellpoint subsidiaries. Connecticut’s Insurance Commissioner Sullivan rejected these companies requests for increases last year. It seems likely the same thing will happen this year. Read the rest of this entry